By HENRY COLT
Sentinel Staff Writer
An ordinance to make tiny houses a viable living option in Sitka won general approval by the Assembly Tuesday night, but since it was amended during the meeting, it will have to be brought back at a later meeting for a vote on first reading.
Consideration of the tiny home ordinance Tuesday night marked the second time it was before the Assembly on first reading.
The Assembly first considered it Jan. 28, but sent it back to the planning department for clarification of the section on the chassis (wheeled framework) and foundation requirements.
With those changes included in the latest draft, the tiny home ordinance appeared to be headed for approval on first reading Tuesday night. But that didn’t happen because the Assembly, during its discussion of the measure, decided to eliminate a section on allowable building materials, creating a “substantive change” that made it necessary to schedule it for a third consideration on first reading.
Tiny houses are a national trend, and the ordinance under consideration in Sitka defines them as dwellings whose total floor space, excluding lofts, is less than 400 square feet.
The amendment removed a section from the ordinance (section F) that said tiny houses can’t have vinyl or plastic siding, oriented strand board, rolled roofing or roofs with a less than 2 in 12 pitch.
“Why are we telling people that a tiny home has to be a ‘durable affordable’ housing unit?” asked Deputy Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz, the Assembly member who made the motion to get rid of section F. “Perhaps there are people out there who want a tiny home that is lavishly built.”
“I think it’s a little bit of government telling us what to do, when there is a code in place already,” he added. “If someone chooses to make a flat roof, in my estimation that is a mistake as well. But I think these people should be given the opportunity to make that roof.”
Richard Wein said, “I think that eliminating F gives a little more leeway to the person who wants to build (the tiny house) – but that does not excuse the fact that it has to be structurally sound, etcetera. In this case, we can’t allow size to matter, because if it’s tiny, it shouldn’t necessarily have more restrictions than (those placed on) the larger community we see here in Sitka.”
The amendment to remove section F passed 5-2, with Richard Wein, Kevin Knox, Steven Eisenbeisz, Valorie Nelson and Thor Christianson in favor, and Kevin Mosher and Gary Paxton against.
“I voted ‘no’ primarily to say that I’m ready to move forward with tiny houses, rather than start over for another first reading next week,” Paxton told the Sentinel over the phone Wednesday. He said he trusts planning department staff to make researched, rational decisions, and that fine-tuning could always happen after the ordinance was passed.
“I voted against it because if we keep fiddling with this every single time we bring it to the table, we’re never going to get it done – we’re just going to keep coming up with little things,” Mosher said over the phone Wednesday. “This is an important issue, and as long as it’s safe I am OK with moving forward.”
The ordinance on the agenda Tuesday night had changes resulting from concerns raised at the Jan. 28 Assembly meeting about the wheeled chassis on which many tiny houses exist.
Planning department special projects manager Scott Brylinsky outlined those changes to the Assembly, explaining that they include definition of a chassis, structural requirements for a chassis, and a written distinction between tiny houses and RVs/self-propelled vehicles.
Before the question of whether to remove section F was raised, about a half dozen members of the public commented on the ordinance, most of them urging the Assembly to pass the measure and make tiny homes an option for housing in Sitka.
Once the measure is passed on first reading, it will be scheduled for public hearing and a final vote on adoption.
